Personal musings on Israel, Jewish matters, history and how they all affect each other

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

The Road to Hell and its Pavement

I'm too busy today to be blogging, but Walter Russel Mead's post about the do-gooders and fake peace activists who enable the world's worst monsters is a must read. He may perhaps overstate his case - but only by a bit.

14 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I am still stuck in the first volume of Churchill's WW2 and boy does he moan and complain about the disarmament movement

- while it was known to everybody way before 1933 that Russia (yes Russia) let Germany train troops within its borders so Germany could evade the terms of Versailles politicians in power reacted unanimously with "but they only want to play".

(reminds me somehow that Turkey right now lets Jihadists train troops within its borders ...)

a post "criticizing" the latest Israeli government "blunder" of "We con the World" fame by Yitzchak Goodman whom I had the pleasure to meet over at Ibrahim's quite regularly and who surprise surprise crossposts at Soccer DadSilke

and here's the teaser:

Other measured and cogent Zionism-related statements by Muslim national spokespersons include the recent revelation by a Syrian diplomat that Jewish children riding busses sing the following ditty:-"With my teeth I will rip your flesh, with my mouth I will suck your blood."An apology from the Israeli government for the children's crime is expected shortly, and other upcoming apologetic events include a new flotilla by a Jewish group. We also deeply regret the above post.http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archives/2010/06/09/exclusive_penitent_song-spoof_draft.html

Haven't we leaned yet not to quote community leaders from a Jewish minority surrounded by potentially hostile populations?http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/world/middleeast/09turkey.html?ref=global-home

Apparently even a Jewish Euro-leftist, whose book "Who Killed Daniel Pearl" is a must-read even though deadly dull in a very Gallic way, has suddenly realized where his "good intentions" for Israel and lending his name to those who would destroy it, are leading.

Even an intellectual can acquire wisdom. It just takes longer to work its way through the onion layers of received self-justifying prejudices.

AKUSI got convulsions of (bitter) laughter when I came across the headlines first. These guys are willing to do anything to get clicks, sometimes possibly even come up with a good argument (haven't read it yet).

But to lighten the day here is a very good, comprehensive and sound (yes sound) analysis of Hamas - enjoy!!!found via CiFWatch http://www.nolaughingmatter.tv/

Haven't we leaned yet not to quote community leaders from a Jewish minority surrounded by potentially hostile populations?

Reading that NY Times article on Turkey.

Eight paragraphs in and no mention of the governing party's Islamist ideology. This is the explanation given for Turkey's new direction in foreign affairs:

"From Turkey’s perspective, however, it is simply finding its footing in its own backyard, a troubled region that has been in turmoil for years, in part as a result of American policy making. Turkey has also been frustrated in its longstanding desire to join the European Union."

Then in the ninth and tenth paragraphs quotes from the foreign minister talks about his party's voters being more motivated by economic concerns than "Islamic solidarity."

And then of course we get the Turkish perspective on Israel from Turkey's Jewish inhabitants, who know only too well that should they veer even slightly from the acceptable narrative, that famous (but in reality quite tenuous) Muslim tolerance will disappear in an instant.

Whitewash Islam and Islamist political parties; exaggerate the U.S. role in causing disturbing new developments in a Muslim country; blame Israel; and find some frightened or opportunistic Jews to explain how away irrational hatred of Israel as being caused by specific Israel policies or personalities.

a Haaretz headline suggests that Robert Gates thinks it is all the EUs fault for not taking Turkey in

- how about asking what one could have come up with had Merkel been given full US support from before even becoming chancellor for her unwillingness to give Turkey full membership.

I have been sitting on the fence for ages unable to make up my mind on what would be a good thing for ME, to "integrate" Turkey or not. (I'm a woman I take everything personal;-)

But the more obvious all this Ditib (Turkish religious authority) meddling became the more I didn't want them to have a say on my life via Brussels.

Just think of it: now there is lots of head-wagging and pontificating about us because we can't come up with something smart and successful to keep the nutty ones of the Turkish minority reigned in and that we prove incompetent with that is supposed to be proof that if we had taken huge Turkey in or would now our immoderates would have turned into enthusiastic supporters of the division between state and church?

I can see US strategic thinking behind it but there must be a smarter solution.

but the Zeitgeist is of course "without borders" and we'll all sing Kumbaya (especially the NGOs) forever and ever. On the other hand I can see lots of virtue in "good fences make for good neighbours".

a Haaretz headline suggests that Robert Gates thinks it is all the EUs fault for not taking Turkey in

This is what I mean about the lengths people will go, and the rediculous, laughable opinions they will espouse, to avoid the obvious: The Islamist party in power in Turkey is acting exactly like an Islamist party should be expected to act.

See no Islam; hear no Islam; speak of no Islam.

Gates' job is to protect the U.S., not to worry about the feelings of enemy Islamists who will remain enemies regardless of whether he talks about them as though they were victims. Even the Islamists get a good laugh listening to the "useful idiots." Gates should be informing infidels in Israel and elswhere about the true nature of the Turkish Islamists, not blaming others--in this case the EU--for their behavior which makes it clear Turkey is unfit for EU membership.

I can see US strategic thinking behind it but there must be a smarter solution.

I am a proud American, but America (more accurately, American leaders) hasn't been thinking in a long time. The Bush and Obama administrations have been highly ignorant and irresponsible in their approach to Turkey. When not being blind to the Islamist nature of the current party in power, American administrations have urged policies that hurt the secularists in Turkey. For example, Condi Rice warned the Turkish military not to interfere in politics as this would threaten democracy. A nice sentiment for those of us in North America or Western Europe, perhaps, but one that ignores that the military in Turkey has been the institution most committed to preserving the legacy of Ataturk, and that perhaps--however imperfectly--a brief undemocratic intervention by the military to save democracy and secularism is preferable to allowing Islamists to bring a dangerous regime to power through "free and fair elections."

That is why I oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is wasting lives and treasure for outcomes that aren't possible. These states will never be peaceful, functioning, democratic allies in the "War on Terror," not unless Islam experiences a reformation or is ruthlessly suppressed a la Ataturk, and the tribal and cultural ways of those states evolves into something more amenable to civilized society.

The one exception is the Kurdish area in Northern Iraq, where I am all for the US keeping troops and for offering the Kurds independence from the rest of Iraq. Due to the strong Kurdish identity and national culture, and the association of Islam as the religion of the Arabs who oppressed them, many Kurds are more conflicted about Islam or regard it as a less signficant aspect of their identity than Kurish ethnicity. So the Kurds offer a reason for optimism and also a reason for pessimism, in that they aren't Arabs nor are they ruled by 12ver Shia, so this doesn't lessen the threat from Islam for infidels. And there are plenty of Kurds who take their Islam seriously, who seek to impose Sharia law on Muslim communities in Europe and engage in honor killings, etc. However, reports from Northern Iraq do indicate that the Kurds have used their US protection from the Iraqi Arabs to create a far more agreeable society than anything else in the Middle East outside of Israel.

now this is a surprise - China wants to take over Piraeus (Greek-Athens-Harbour) if that is true that puts a new and different angle on the tetes-à-têtes between Erdogan, Putin and Ah'jad yesterday - maybe they buddy up to keep China away. China so close to the Dardanelles can't please Putin.

If that is the new power play then there may be real hope for Israel to find itself in the (quiet) eye of the storm

4infidelsfirst I am probably much more forgiving as to the missteps of empire (and states in general) than you are, a lot more of those than we think are more or less unavoidable (it took me 5 volumes of Churchill's WW1 to get a first idea of that - history books may make great reads but in general they don't devote something like 3000 pages to just 4 years of war and to read the backs and forths and missteps in such details was a great wake-up for me as to how "complex" it all was)

That said when the US decided to go into Iraq I was appalled because I had read about Gertrude Bell and the decision to enter Afghanistan with ground troops except for the purpose of hunting down Osama bin Laden is better not mentioned at all (yes I am a woman and I wish women of Afghanistan well but for the life of me I can't imagine that this is going to last, once madness has taken hold it probably has to run its course and all one can do is keeping the madmen from expanding) (in the early 70s Greek islands filled up in May and June with Americans returning from Afghanistan making a living out of selling stuff they bought there to tourists in Greece - times have changed haven't they? Afghanistan was preferred hippie region then)(did you know that the Brits kind of had to invent aerial bombing - Italians had come up with a more primitive version first - to keep control of Iraq after WW1 because any other method would have been too costly in lifes and pounds?)

But once the US was in Iraq I looked at my little globe and decided that they hadn't chosen a bad place to hunker down in and from where to keep the region in check, but then came Obama and instead of finishing the Iraq job the way Odierno seems to have wanted it, had the brillant idea to do a bit of a show-off in Afghanistan. I'm sure he meant well but ...

So your Kurdistan idea doesn't sound all bad to me, but if the US does do it, she should do it in empire worthy style, no low profile and respect them and all that BS - the GIs after WW2 were nice with us as Americans seem to be compulsively nice, but did they respect us in the way they try to respect now everybody except themselves, heck no way - look at fotos from the time, you always find some where they obviously look down on us or even despise us and good for them, that was a feeling one could understand as being natural instead of all that respecting which everybody in his/her sane mind suspects of being hypocritical to the hilt. (I am not talking about the occasions where individuals genuinely liked eachother).

One of the more weird questions I ask myself is: maybe Iraqis and Afghanis are so unruly because the US says she doesn't want to stay. It would be natural for them to think they get a worse treatment than Japan and Germany got who both prospered so much under US-occupation. Why shouldn't they want the same instead of being told we leave you on your own ooops we'll set you free?

as to the 12ver nuts, the Mahdi phenomenon doesn't seem to be an exclusive Shia speciality. Both times Churchill encountered it (Afpak border and Sudan culminating in the battle of Omdourman) the Mahdis seem to have been Sunni but still managed to mobilise large fanatic crowds.